Federal agency decisionmaking that affects the environment is influenced by a variety of factors. Among them are the statutes and executive orders that define an agency's mandate; the standards of review applied by the courts; the attitudes of agency personnel; the agency's relationships with groups in the private sector, the congressional committees with jurisdiction over its programs, other federal agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget, and the public; and the priorities and politics of the administration in power.

This morning, Fred Anderson described several assessments of the performance of federal regulatory agencies. He identified one as "pessimistic." That view held that federal agencies would always remain more responsive to money, economic and political power than to the "public interest." With some qualifications, I subscribe to that pessimistic view. My judgment, however, is tempered by sympathy for the plight of the bureaucrat at all levels of government. The problem, as I see it, is that the bureaucrat's constituency is unbalanced.

My comments will be directed to federal issues encountered during my short experience as General Counsel of the Council on Environmental Quality. I would like to start by describing NEPA in perspectives that I have seen during these last few months.

Federal agency decisionmakers with environmental responsibilities have discovered the hidden truth that Lincoln forgot to mention. It is, in fact, possible to please none of the people all of the time.

This year, a new entry will appear in the legislative branch section of the U.S. Government Organization Manual; the long awaited Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) is now in business. Like the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service or the General Accounting Office, OTA is an arm of the legislative branch. Its assignment is to help congressional committees better assess the impacts of new technologies that Congress is called upon the regulate or finance.

Thank you Professor Murphy, I think. I'm linked in your introduction with the bureaucrats who were going off or on welfare and am given the left-handed compliment of being an experienced person. We have been treated to a very youthful presentation this morning. All of these sallies and circumstances cause me to pull back and reflect. Fred Anderson this morning announced what I suppose will be the battle-cry of this conference—\ stamp out thinking of the 1930s. Somehow that accusation is associated with experience and might even be associated with me.

1. Is there a special role for courts in reviewing NEPA claims that does not obtain in the general run of administrative law cases?

The available time for this brief presentation does not permit any extended discussion of NEPA—the National Environmental Policy Act and the preparation of environmental impact statements pursuant to its provisions. This statute's basic requirements and obligations have been sufficiently outlined by major court decisions.

The Environmental Law Institute has recently been awarded a six-month research contract by the Marine Mammal Commission, which was established by Title II of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.

More than one year has passed since the Arab oil embargo threw a complacent America into temporary panic and made it clear that Americans have irrevocably added energy to food, clothing, and shelter as one of life's essentials. While the panic is gone, at least for now, the crisis is likely to be with us for a long time in one form or another. Our appetite for energy, already six times the world per capita average,¹ continues to grow faster than our capacity to develop new sources of supply.